Climatic Change

, Volume 144, Issue 1, pp 29–39 | Cite as

An alternative framework for negotiating climate policies

  • Geoffrey HealEmail author
  • Howard Kunreuther


In this paper, we make two points about bottom-up approaches to climate policy. First, we argue that it is more productive to work with a small group of countries to establish the basis of a global climate regime than tackling the issue with all countries, as in the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). Secondly, we argue that negotiators should also work explicitly to encourage the development and deployment of clean technologies as a way to reduce future emissions, and suggest how this might be achieved.

JEL classification

Q28 Q42 Q 54 Q 58 


  1. Barrett S (2003) Environment and statecraft: the strategy of environmental treaty-making. Oxford University Press, Oxford, U.K.Google Scholar
  2. Barrett S (2013) Climate treaties and approaching catastrophes. J Environ Econ Manag 66:235–250CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Benedick RE (1998) Ozone diplomacy: new directions in safeguarding the planet. Harvard University Press, Oxford, U.K.Google Scholar
  4. Cremeans B, Lakshmivarahan S, Dhall SK (2012) An approximation algorithm for computing a tipping set in super modular games for interdependent security. Proc Comput Sci 12:404–411CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Dixit A (2003) Clubs with entrapment. Am Econ Rev 93:1824–1829CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Hafner-Burton EM, Victor DG, Lupu Y (2012) Political science research on international law. Am J Int Law 106:47–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Heal G, Kunreuther H (2010) Social reinforcement: cascades, entrapment, and tipping. Am Econ J: Microecon 2:86–99Google Scholar
  8. Heal G, Kunreuther H (2012) Tipping climate negotiations. In: Hahn R, Ulph A (eds) Common sense and climate change: essays in honor of Thomas Schelling. Oxford University Press, Oxford, U.K.Google Scholar
  9. Jaffe AB, Newell RG, Stavins RN (2005) A tale of two market failures: technology and environmental policy. Ecol Econ 54:164CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Keohane R, Victor D (2011) The regime of climate change. Perspect Polit 9:7–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Lovei M (1998) Phasing out lead from gasoline: worldwide experience and policy implications, World Bank Technical Paper 397Google Scholar
  12. Newell RG, Rogers K (2003) The US experience in the phasedown of lead in gasoline. Resources for the future, discussion paperGoogle Scholar
  13. Nordhaus W (2017) Climate clubs: designing a mechanism to overcome free-riding in international climate policy. Am Econ RevGoogle Scholar
  14. Shafran AP, Lepore JJ (2011) Subsidization to induce tipping. Econ Lett 110:32–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Stewart R, Oppenheimer M, Rudyk B (2015) Building blocks: a new way forward for global cooperation on climate changeGoogle Scholar
  16. Sunstein C (2007) Montreal vs. Kyoto: a tale of two protocols. Harv Environ Law RevGoogle Scholar
  17. Victor DG (2011) Global warming gridlock: creating more effective strategies for protecting the planet. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Columbia Business SchoolNew YorkUSA
  2. 2.Wharton SchoolThe University of PennsylvaniaPhiladelphiaUSA

Personalised recommendations